...each case, permission to apply was granted by the single judge on the papers. These claimants challenge separate decisions of the magistrates sitting at Highbury Corner Magistrates' Court, to grant in...the Highbury Corner Magistrates' Court and entered a plea of not guilty. The case was adjourned until 3rd January to await the decision of this court in various cases: DPP v...juncture. He was arrested and charged for driving with excess alcohol on 22nd April 2001. On 27th April 2001 he appeared before the justices at Highbury Corner Magistrates' Court. He indicated that he would...

...; that in accordance with R (Walden and Stern) v Highbury Corner Magistrates' Court [2003] EWHC...the decision of the Dartford Magistrates' Court on 1st August 2005 to refuse the prosecution an adjournment. The prosecution witnesses were not present and the outcome was that the case was dismissed.... The question posed by the magistrates in the case stated is whether they could properly have refused the adjournment requested. The discretionary power of the magistrates' court to adjourn a trial is...

...offences, including handling stolen goods and failing to surrender to custody.                                              iii.    On 15 th May 2004, at Highbury Corner Magistrates' Court, he...Highbury Corner Magistrates' Court, he was convicted for destroying/damaging property and breach of a suspended sentence (imposed for the earlier assault), for which he was sentenced to 5 months...convictions for a wide variety of offences including crimes of violence, public order, drugs, significant motoring offences and breaches of court orders. He received short custodial sentences of between...

...Lord Justice Latham: 1. On the 24th February 2006 the Justices sitting at the Highbury Corner Magistrates Court dismissed summonses brought against the respondent...public highway.2.4. On 08/03/2004 Mr R Molinari an employee of the appellants, had delivered letters to businesses in Tottenham Court Road, including the respondent company...justices agreed and convicted the appellant in that case. On appeal to this court, the issue was whether or not the deposit of waste in those circumstances could amount to an "escape". 6...

...Highbury Corner Magistrates' Court on 3rd June 1999, when he convicted the Appellant of the offence of harassment and then conditionally discharged him. 2. The offence of harassment was...convicted the Appellant.". 12. He poses the questions for this Court in this form: "(a) the first question for the opinion of the High Court is whether there needs to be a nexus...Harassment Act 1997;(b) the second question for the opinion of theHigh Court is whether there was sufficient evidence upon which the Appellant could...

...Highbury Corner Magistrates' Court and was committed to the Crown Court for sentence. On 24th November, in the Crown Court at Wood Green, he was sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment with a direction that 48...something of the background. The appellant is 43 years old. He has 38 previous court appearances for 67 offences of various types, including offences of violence, dishonesty, public disorder and drugs. He...has served custodial sentences on many occasions. 3. He has a history of flouting court orders, including eight convictions for Bail Act offences and breaches of conditional discharges...

...JUDGMENTAS APPROVED BY THE COURT ____________________ Crown Copyright © JUDGE TILLING: On 18th May 2001 this appellant was committed for sentence by the Highbury Corner Magistrates' Court, on... Barlow, R v [2001] EWCA Crim 2936 (21st December, 2001) Neutral Citation Number: [2001] EWCA Crim 2936 Case No: 01/3966/X3 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURECOURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL...DIVISION) Royal Courts of JusticeStrand, London, WC2A 2LL Friday 21st December 2001 B e f o r e : LORD JUSTICE LATHAMMR JUSTICE PITCHFORDand HIS HONOUR JUDGE TILLING(Sitting as a Judge of the Court of...

...Crown Copyright ©1. MR JUSTICE MADDISON: Kingsley Ukpabi appeals by way of case stated against his conviction at the Highbury Corner Magistrates' Court on 7 February 2007...episode, the incident would not have escalated in the way that it did. 6. The appeal has been prompted by what the magistrates said when they returned to court. In a nutshell, the...369, Bell J, giving a judgment with which Lord Woolf LCJ agreed, concluded that because the magistrates in that case had given the impression in their remarks made in open court that they had applied...

...application for a closure order would be made to Highbury Corner Magistrates' Court on 11th November 2005. The application was made then and adjourned to 25th November 2005. 12. There is a...Highbury Corner Magistrates' Court [2006] 1 WLR 220; [2005] EWHC 2568 (Admin). In this context, it is obviously important that the police provide...Lord Justice May: 1. Part 1 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 concerns premises where drugs are used unlawfully. Section 2 of the Act empowers a magistrates' court to...

...for possessing a Class B controlled drug (cannabis). 12. On 10 October 2003 at Highbury Corner Magistrates Court, you were convicted of possession of a Class B drug - cannabis resin...and fined £150.00 and costs of £50.00 to pay. 13. On 22 January 2004 at Highbury Corner Magistrates Court, you were convicted of possessing controlled Class B drugs - cannabis, for...which you were fined £50.00. 14. On 29 September 2004 at Highbury Corner Magistrates Court, you were convicted of possessing cannabis, a Class C controlled drug and fined £30.00 and...

...). 12. On 10 October 2003 at Highbury Corner Magistrates Court, you were convicted of possession of a Class B drug - cannabis resin and fined £150.00 and costs of £50.00 to pay.... 13. On 22 January 2004 at Highbury Corner Magistrates Court, you were convicted of possessing controlled Class B drugs - cannabis, for which you were fined £50.00. 14. On 29...September 2004 at Highbury Corner Magistrates Court, you were convicted of possessing cannabis, a Class C controlled drug and fined £30.00 and costs of £55.00 to pay. 15. On 10 December...

...Council ("LBC") in respect of eleven liability orders for unpaid business rates made by the Highbury Corner Magistrates Court in 2016 and 2017 in the total sum of 40,103.98. The Petition was supported by...above, the Petition debt of 40,103.98 was the outstanding balance of sums due and payable under eleven liability orders granted by the Highbury Corner Magistrates Court in 2016 and 2017 in respect of...of applications to the Highbury Corner Magistrates Court to set them aside, and that by using the winding up process in such circumstances, LBC's solicitors had caused costs to be wasted unreasonably...

...control or management of an unlicensed HMO contrary to section 72(1) HA 2004 and breaches of unlicensed HMO regulations pursuant to section 234(3) HA 2004. On 4 May 2002 at Highbury Corner Magistrates Court the...Highbury Corner Magistrates Court and sentenced on 4 May 2022. As this application was made to the tribunal on 9 December 2022 the tribunal finds that this is within the 12 months period referred to in...) Case reference : LON/00AG/HMF/2021/0300 HMCTS code : Face to Face Property : Flat 11 Soane Court, St Pancras Way, London NW1 9EG...

...VICE PRESIDENT: Any application for a representation order must be made to Highbury Corner Magistrates' Court. ...rear seat passenger's home. What seems to have happened is that everything found had been brought to court -- that of course was the right procedure because questions might arise in the trial over what...to be arraigned on that indictment within two months, unless this court directs otherwise. There is no reason why it should not be at Leeds. It will be at Leeds unless the Presiding Judges of the North...

...R(Walden and Stern) v Highbury Corner Magistrates' Court [2002] EWCA 708 (Admin), the claimants' trial upon a charge of driving with excess alcohol was adjourned...Visvaratnam, the claimant, for judicial review to challenge a decision of the Brent Magistrates' Court made on 6 June 2008 to adjourn his trial upon a charge of driving whilst unfit through drugs, on the...magistrates' court may at any time, whether before or after beginning to try an information, adjourn the trial ..." This power is not unrestricted, as a number of reported cases...

...IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICEQUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT B e f o r e :MR JUSTICE HOLMAN ________________________________________ Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of WordWave International LimitedA Merrill Communications Company 165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DYTel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7404 1424(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) Mr Fred Banning, solicitor advocate, appeared on behalf of the Appellants Miss Christine Cooper (instructed by London Borough of Camden) appeared on behalf of the Respondents. ____________________HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT ____________________Crown Copyright ©MR JUSTICE HOLMAN: The context of this case is rating, but the essential issue is as to the law of evidence and in particular the concept of weight. The appellants own the rateable premises in question. Did the mere production by them of a sheet of paper headed "Lease" discharge the evidential burden of showing that they were not entitled to occupy the premises in question so as not to be liable to pay the business rates? The essential facts may be stated very shortly, for most of them are not, and never have been, in dispute. The appellants, Pall Mall Investments Limited, own premises at the fifth and sixth floors of 34 to 35, Hatton Garden, London EC4. The London Borough of Camden, being the relevant rating authority and now the respondents to this appeal, set business rates. They duly demanded payment of them by the appellants for the period 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2011 in the total sum of 34,710.29. The appellants did not pay and the local authority issued a'summons for non-payment. This was finally heard by District Judge (Magistrates' Courts) James Henderson at Highbury Corner Magistrates' Court on 31 May 2011. He adjudged that the defendants (viz Pall Mall Investments) were liable to pay the aggregate amounts specified. Pall Mall Investments now appeal to this court by way of case stated.Before quoting the more material parts of the case stated, it is first necessary to describe aspects of the procedural history. The summons for non-payment of business rates was first issued on 16 February 2011, summoning Pall Mall Investments to a hearing on 17 March 2011. However, there was correspondence and various exchanges between Pall Mall Investments Limited and Camden such that it became clear that the liability to pay the business rates would be disputed. As I understand it, at all material times the premises in question were not in fact physically occupied by anybody. They were completely vacant, empty and unused. However, rating law prescribes that in the event that premises are in that way unoccupied, the liability to pay business rates falls upon the person or body entitled to occupy the premises. From an early stage, Pall Mall Investments Limited asserted to Camden that although they were at all material times the owners of the premises, they were not at the material time entitled to occupy them. In support of that assertion they produced to Camden a piece of paper headed with the word "Lease" of which I now scan a facsimile into the transcribed text of this judgment.As I understand it, Camden made clear in correspondence that they did not accept that piece of paper as being an authentic lease. As a result, and it is very important to stress this, two sets of directions were made by the magistrates' court. The first set of directions was made on 7 April 2011. This required Pall Mall Investments to serve their skeleton argument and witness statements within 21 days, namely by 28 April 2011. It then provided for Camden to serve their skeleton argument and witness statements 14 days thereafter, namely by 12 May 2011.Pall Mall Investments did not serve any witness statements by 28 April 2011 or indeed at all. As a result, Camden wrote to the magistrates' court and the court made a further set of directions on 12 May 2011. These required Pall Mall Investments to confirm in writing within 7 days details of all witnesses that they intend to call at the trial and to serve their witness statements within 7 days, namely by 19 May 2011. The directions then required Pall Mall to confirm in writing within 7 days whether they intend to adduce any other documents other than the lease agreement at the trial and requiring Pall Mall Investments to serve a'skeleton argument within 7 days setting out their legal position and explaining how they discharged the burden of proving that they were not in rateable occupation of the premises during the liability period. Finally, the directions provided that Camden should serve their skeleton argument and witness statements 14 days thereafter.There were indeed exchanges of skeleton arguments, but right up to the date of the hearing itself, namely 31 May 2011, Pall Mall Investments did not serve any witness statement at all. It is perhaps a moot point as to any cut-off date for Camden to serve any witness statements of their own, given that those directions clearly contemplated a'sequential exchange of witness statements beginning with all those by and on behalf of Pall Mall Investments. As I understand it, it was only very shortly indeed before the actual hearing that Camden did produce a'statement by an official, Kasia Woropajew. The position at the hearing on 31 May 2011 appears to have been as follows. No statement of any kind had been produced by, or on behalf of, Pall Mall Investments. As I understand it, the only persons present in the court at the hearing on behalf of Pall Mall Investments were their solicitor advocate, Mr Fred Banning, and a surveyor giving him technical assistance on rating matters. As I understand it, there was simply no one present at the court at all in any way directly connected with, or employed by, Pall Mall Investments; and, specifically, there were not present the Director or Secretary, whoever they may have been, who purport with illegible signatures to have signed the "Lease". On behalf of Camden, there was present their solicitor, Mr Siaf Alam, who conducted the case on their behalf that day and is indeed present in court here today, although now instructing counsel, Miss Christine Cooper. Having now described at some length that procedural background, I can quote verbatim from parts of the later case stated by the district judge dated 24 June 2011. "1. On 31st May 2011 Pall Mall Investments appeared before the Highbury Corner Magistrates' Court, on an application by the London Borough of Camden for a liability order in respect of business rates for ... (the property).2. Pall Mall Investments asserted that they were not responsible for the business rates in that they were not entitled to occupation of the property.3. I find the following facts set out in separate lettered paragraphs:(A) The statutory requirements were satisfied: The rate had been properly set, demands for rates from Pall Mall Investments had been sent in proper form and reminders sent in proper form. (B) The rates had not been paid by Pall Mall Investments. (C) Pall Mall Investments were the Freeholders of the relevant property. (D) Pall Mall Investments produced a document that purported to be a lease granted...Mall Investments were in rateable occupation.That there was no evidentiary basis upon which the court could conclude that the lease stated to commence on 1 April...2009 did not create a tenancy and therefore did not transfer the right of occupation.6. The court noted the following with respect to the form of lease...

...Crown Copyright ©1. MR JUSTICE MITTING: This appeal raises a narrow and far from straightforward question. On 31 January 2011, Highbury Corner Magistrates' Court found...that I should substitute convictions for theft and leave the sentence imposed by the magistrates, which has been served, undisturbed. 2. The relevant facts as found by the Magistrates...' Court are clearly set out in the stated case: "(i) On 11 August 2010 RP snatched a cigarette from Mayura Gill's hand.(ii) The snatch amounted to the use of force...

...in breach of a suspended sentence order imposed by the Highbury Corner Magistrates' Court on 24th August 2017. That suspended sentence order was for twelve weeks, suspended for 18 months. Judge Dodd...MR JUSTICE NICOL:1. On 10th November 2017 in the Crown Court at Wood Green the appellant pleaded guilty to an offence of sexual activity with a child, contrary to section...months, the notification requirements will continue for seven years. 25. The appellant is also reminded that the restraining order imposed by North London Magistrates on 24th August...

...in obtaining the liability order" BACKGROUND3. The applicant had previously sought permission under s.42 (3) to apply, under s.111 Magistrates' Court Act, to the Highbury Corner Magistrates...London Borough of Camden to enforce payment of unpaid council tax charges in the sum of 137.02. On 28 August 2014 Sir Stephen Silber granted permission to bring proceedings in the Magistrates' Court asking...) A request to apply for renewal of the application for permission to challenge the decision not to state a case on the liability order.5. The Magistrates' Court, as is customary, does...

...2002. These offences took place on 8 April 2022. 2. On 21 July 2022 having pleaded guilty before Highbury Corner Magistrates' Court, the applicant was committed for sentence to the.... 3. On 27 October 2022 having pleaded guilty before the Magistrates' Court, the applicant was committed for sentence to the Crown Court in respect of two offences of possessing a class A drug with...offences he entered guilty pleas in the Magistrates' Court and for those offences the judge allowed full credit. 12. The judge took into account the applicant's relatively young age, that...